Decisions

The appellant requested a copy of a police report concerning a specified occurrence that involved an affected party and herself. The police granted partial access to the report and withheld some information pursuant to sections 14(1) and 38(b) (personal privacy). The appellant appealed the decision taking the position that the personal information in the withheld information is her own and should be disclosed to her. In this order, the adjudicator upholds the police’s claim that section 38(b) applies to the withheld personal information and dismisses the appeal.

Two sons of a deceased patient requested under the Act that the hospital make several corrections to the death note of their mother. The hospital granted two corrections related to the date and circumstances of their mother’s death but denied a third related to the cause of death.
In this decision, the adjudicator finds that the information the sons want corrected, the impact of their mother’s mental health in her death, is a professional opinion or observation made in good faith by the attending physician, and the section 55(9)(b) exception to the duty to correct therefore applies. He upholds the decision of the hospital and dismisses the complaint.

This order involves a request for records relating to the appellant in the context of their employment with the University of Ottawa (the university). The university denied access to records including videos, claiming that they are excluded from the scope of the Act under the labour relations and employment exclusion in section 65(6)3. The appellant claims that the records are not excluded from the Act due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the exception in section 65(7) and that the videos were not made for an employment purpose. In this order, the adjudicator finds that promissory estoppel does not apply, section 65(6)3 applies to all of the records except the videos, and the exception in section 65(7) do not apply. She orders the university to issue a decision letter to the appellant regarding the videos without recourse to section 65(6)3.

At issue in this appeal are line items containing unit pricing information in the appellant’s successful bid submission. The Region of Peel (the region) took the position that the information should be disclosed to the requester. The appellant argued that it qualified for exemption under section 10(1) (third party information) of the Act. In this order, the adjudicator finds that the unit pricing information does not qualify for exemption under section 10(1) of the Act. The adjudicator orders that the region disclose it to the requester.

This final order resolves the outstanding issue of the reasonableness of the City of Hamilton’s (the city’s) search following Interim Order MO-4443-I. In compliance with the interim order, the city conducted a further search for responsive records to the appellant’s requests and provided an affidavit describing its search. In this final order, the adjudicator finds that the city has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable search for responsive records. The appeal is dismissed.

The complainant sought access under Part X of the Act for his “entire family file” with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the service provider). The complainant was granted access, in part, to the responsive records but was denied access to information the service provider says relates to other individuals.

In this decision, the adjudicator orders the service provider to grant the complainant full access to three records she finds are dedicated primarily to the provision of a service to the complainant. The adjudicator also orders the service provider to grant the complainant greater access to the complainant’s personal information which can reasonably be severed from other information in records not dedicated primarily to the provision of service to him. The adjudicator upholds the service provider’s decision to deny the complainant access under the Act to the remaining withheld information.

The appellant submitted a request to the city for information relating to the city’s winter road maintenance program. The city denied the request on the basis that it was frivolous or vexatious. In this order, the adjudicator finds the city did not sufficiently establish its claim within the meaning of section 4(1)(b) of the Act and orders it to issue an access decision to the appellant.

The appellant sought access to all notes and correspondence from two Associate Deans of the college pertaining to him. The college granted the appellant full access to correspondence it located from one Associate Dean and said that it did not identify other responsive records. The appellant challenged the reasonableness of the college’s search for responsive records.
In this interim order, the adjudicator finds that, aside from one aspect of the request, the college did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records. The adjudicator orders the college to conduct a further search and issue a new access decision.

The Town of Aurora (the town) received a request under the Act for access to records for building permit applications relating to two specified addresses. Following notification of two affected parties who might have an interest in the disclosure of the records, the town decided to disclose the records, in part. One of the affected parties appealed the town’s decision with respect to the records related to one of the addresses.

In this order, the adjudicator finds that the information that is at issue is not personal information and, therefore, cannot be exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) (personal privacy) of the Act. The adjudicator upholds the town’s decision to disclose the records, in part, and orders it to provide them to the requester in accordance with its original decision.

The county received a detailed request under the Act for access to records related to a certain notice issued by the county. The county advised that there were no responsive records. On appeal, the appellant challenges the county’s interpretation of the scope of the request and the reasonableness of the county’s search for responsive records. The adjudicator allows the appeal in part. She upholds county’s interpretation of the scope of the request, in part, but finds that the county’s interpretation of the request was narrow in one respect. She orders the county to conduct a search in response to that aspect of the request.

The appellant sought access to records from the Archives of Ontario (the archives) for information related to his mother’s incarceration in two Ontario prisons from 1957 to 1971. The archives conducted multiple searches and disclosed responsive records to the appellant. The appellant maintained that the archives did not conduct a reasonable search for records and that additional records existed.
In this order, the adjudicator upholds the archives’ search for responsive records as reasonable and dismisses the appeal.

The ministry received a request from the media for information from the Minister of Health’s transition binder including records regarding human health resources in provincial hospitals. The ministry located responsive records and ultimately withheld information in part of one record relating to the specific numbers of the current and estimated future shortages of personnel in the health workforce in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the estimated gaps in these areas of the health workforce at both 5 and 10 years in the future. The ministry claimed that disclosing the withheld information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c) and would be injurious to the financial interests of the Government or the ability of the Government to manage the economy under section 18(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and claimed that the public interest override applied to the withheld information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(d) apply to the withheld information and finds that, while there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the information at issue, this public interest does not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

After the hospital commenced and settled a lawsuit, a request was made under the Act for a breakdown by year of the hospital’s costs for legal and accounting firm services, and for settlement payments made. The request was denied on several grounds and the requester appealed to the IPC.

In this order, the adjudicator first finds that the legal and accounting firm fees are not excluded from the Act under section 65(6) (employment or labour relations) as argued by the hospital. However, she upholds the hospital’s decision to withhold the legal fees and the settlement payments on the basis of sections 19(a) and (c) (solicitor-client information). She orders the hospital to disclose the accounting firm fees, finding that these are not exempt under sections 19 or 17(1).

The ministry received a request from the media for information from the Minister of Health’s transition binder including records regarding human health resources in provincial hospitals. The ministry located responsive records and ultimately withheld information in part of one record relating to the specific numbers of the current and estimated future shortages of personnel in the health workforce in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the estimated gaps in these areas of the health workforce at both 5 and 10 years in the future. The ministry claimed that disclosing the withheld information would prejudice its economic interests under section 18(1)(c) and would be injurious to the financial interests of the Government or the ability of the Government to manage the economy under section 18(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant appealed the ministry’s decision and claimed that the public interest override applied to the withheld information. In this order, the adjudicator finds that section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(d) apply to the withheld information and finds that while there is a compelling public interest in disclosure of the information at issue, this public interest does not clearly outweigh the purpose of the exemptions.

The City of Hamilton received a request under the Act for access to information from the city’s fire and building departments relating to a municipal address. The city issued an interim access decision identifying 291 pages of responsive records. In its final access decision, the city granted the requester partial access to some responsive records citing a number of exemptions, including section 12 (solicitor-client privilege). The city denied access to some records on the basis that that they had been the subject of previous access requests and/or previously disclosed to the requester.
The requester appealed the city’s decision not to grant access to records subject to previous access requests and its application of the exemption in section 12.
In this interim order, in the absence of any representations from the city, the adjudicator finds that there is insufficient information to determine whether any responsive records have previously been disclosed to the appellant. The adjudicator orders the city to disclose the records that have previously been disclosed to the appellant and to issue an access decision in respect of any records subject to previous access requests to which the city has previously denied access. The adjudicator also orders the city to disclose to the appellant one missing record to which it has decided to grant the requester access, in accordance with its final access decision.
In addition, the adjudicator finds that the solicitor-client privilege exemption in section 12 applies to the records for which it was claimed and upholds the city’s decision to withhold them. The adjudicator defers her finding on the city’s exercise of discretion to apply section 12, ordering the city to provide representations.